Excerpts

When decade of music was included in the analysis, a linear contrast found a quite significant decreasing effect of birth cohort [ F (1,54) = 10.9, p = 0.0017] on how much they were listening to music alone.

In the sub-sample of 17 No-SCD participants that were matched to the SCD group, the difference in FRN amplitude between positive and negative feedback was still highly significant, t (16) = 3.80, p = 0.002, d = 0.92.

Mentalizing categories The effect of mentalizing category was highly significant, F (2, 350) = 6.54, p = 0.002.

This between-group difference was highly significant ( p = 0.002) ( Table 2 and Figure 2 ).

In fact, the rating differences for NH children's happy and sad utterances were highly significant, t (14) = −3.81, p = 0.002, and the same trend was evident for child CI, t (14) = −1.96, p = 0.07.

Crucially, the interaction of congruency and task was highly significant, F (1, 46) = 10.80, p = 0.002.

When examined separately (Figure 2B , gray curves), the effect of depressiveness scores was not significant in scrambled sentences on separation and loss ( z = −1.07, p = 0.14, one-tailed) but highly significant in the optimism set ( z = −2.96, p = 0.002, one-tailed).

The predictor Threat (β = 0.278, p = 0.149) and familiarity (β = -0.287, p = 0.114) were not significant, however, the interaction term threat × familiarity was highly significant (β = -0.613, p = 0.002).

For negative press factors, after controlling for all moderator variables, the difference between MCT and MCBS remained highly significant, B = 0.647, SE = 0.210, z = 3.083, p = 0.002, k = 65.

Differences between means and grand means in concentration approached significance for mental preparation, t (6) = 5.5, p = 0.002, and technique, t (9) = 4.49, p = 0.002.

The difference between N400s elicited by English scientific metaphors and conventional metaphors was marginally significant at the left and middle parietal regions [P3: t (16) = −1.79, p = 0.091; Pz: t (16) = −1.90, p = 0.076], significant at the right frontal and central regions [F4: t (16) = −3.33, p = 0.004; C4: t (16) = −3.50, p = 0.003], and highly significant at the right parietal region [P4: t (16) = −3.65, p = 0.002].

By contrast, the main effect on feature-based inter-trial effects was statistically highly significant, F (7,116) = 3.6, p = 0.002.

As can be seen in Table 4 , the association between RST and the collapsed SRT 70 is highly significant ( p = 0.002), while the association between the collapsed CSC and SRT 70 is not ( p = 0.30).

There was a positive correlation between updating errors and cognitive confidence at borderline significance level [ r (297) = 0.17, R 2 = 0.03, p = 0.003].

In contrast, analyses on the subset of older bilingual children showed a highly significant speed-accuracy trade-off for global performance ( r 29 = 0.53, p = 0.003), and for incongruent ( r 29 = 0.49, p = 0.007) but not congruent trials ( r 29 = 0.15, p = 0.435).

In the model H3, Psychological Safety (PSA) was equally highly significant in impacting Employee Engagement (EEN) ( β = 0.138, p = 0.003).

The other three articles ( Jia et al., 2023 ; Jie et al., 2014 ; Liu et al., 2020 ) used the CFS, which had a large and highly significant effect size (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI: -1.63 ∼ -0.32, p = 0.003) ( Jia et al., 2023 ; Jie et al., 2014 ; Liu et al., 2020 ).

The interaction between Emotion and Question was marginally significant [ F 1 (2,118) = 6.41, p < 0.003, η 2 = 0.01; F 2 (2,36) = 1.82, p < 0.18, η 2 = 0.01], as the effect of Emotion type was largest for the innateness question Δ = 1.37 (for the face and body questions, Δ = 1.08 and Δ = 0.89, respectively).

BMI Z-scores decreased steadily from approximately 0.5 at lower levels of teacher support to around 0.1 at higher levels, representing a reduction of about 0.4 standard deviation units, with a highly significant linear trend ( P = 0.003).

Crucially, the interaction was highly significant [ F 1 (1, 10) = 15.63, MSE = 0.065, p < 0.003; F 2 (1, 30) = 9.28, MSE = 0.075, p < 0.005] 7 .

This was confirmed with a one-way ANCOVA comparing standard scores of verbal ability between children who do and do not report playing a musical instrument, with age, sex, SES, and VO 2 max as covariates: the effect of playing an instrument was highly significant [ F (1, 94) = 9.10, p = 0.003, partial η 2 = 0.091].

A Kruskal–Wallis test revealed this difference to be highly significant ( p < 0.003).

The group-by-age interaction was highly significant ( p = 0.003), altogether suggesting less age-related gray matter decline in meditators than in controls.

Pairwise comparisons show that the difference between onlookers and participants is highly significant in the train scenario, χ 2 (1, 400) = 8.51, p = 0.004, φ c = 0.146, and the large game show scenario, χ 2 (1, 419) = 6.33, p = 0.012, φ c = 0.123, but narrowly failed to reach conventional levels of significance in the small game show scenario: χ 2 (1, 365) = 3.38, p = 0.066, φ c = 0.096.

Importantly, however, the main effect of Mimicry Type remained highly significant when the effect of Gender and the interaction of Gender and Mimicry Type were controlled (Wald χ 2 (2) = 11.21, p = 0.004).